Untitled Sermon (4)

2 Corinthians 11:1-33

Introduction: Read. Reread.

Literary Context:

11.1: Chapter 11 begins the “foolish” discourse in which Paul, as Kruse puts it, “answers the fool according to his folly.” Paul views the type of boasting they engaged in and were enamored by as foolishness. This view was quite counter-cultural. If you’ve ever read the Iliad you’ve seen that the culture had no issue with boasting in oneself. Dio Chrysostom defended the speech of Nestor (in which he boasts of his own accomplishments and former skill) saying: “Is it not the mark of a foolish person to be ashamed to praise himself when by praise he is likely to confer the greatest blessings; just as it is also, I fancy, to do the opposite—put on airs and talk about oneself a great deal, in case some risk or loss should be involved?” (Quote from Garland ft note 154). If there is something to gain, then boast away!

Paul’s view as already expressed in 10:17 is that any boasting done ought to be done “in the Lord” and thus not concerning one’s own accomplishments, but what God has done through him. Paul, however, is going to play their game if only to demonstrate the very folly of it. The actual foolish boasting won’t begin until verse 21, and even in this he is going to be pressing towards the things that demonstrate God’s strength in his own weakness.

11.2-3: Vv. 2-6 present the reasons why the Corinthians should “bear with his foolishness,” and these reasons hardly reflect well on them. Paul initially depicts himself as a father who has betrothed his daughter to be married. Now, Jewish betrothals were far different than engagements that we have today. A betrothal was the first stage of marriage and took place at a very early age (Garland 460). They were not entered into lightly, and the only means by which the betrothal could be broken was through an official bill of divorce. If a betrothed woman had relations with another man, it was considered adultery (she would remain a virgin until after the wedding, since the betrothed couple did not live together until then). Now, it was the father’s responsibility, as Keener notes: “to protect their daughters from men who would prey on them sexually (Deut 22:15-21; Sirach 42:9-12). Paul’s statements here, applied to the Corinthians relationship with Christ, demonstrates Paul’s zeal and loving concern for them. His desire is not that they would view him well for his own sake, but that they would remain faithful to Christ.

This is the idea expressed in verse 3 as well, but with the backdrop of the Genesis account. Eve’s deception was an intellectual one as she was persuaded against the truth of the Word of God. This is certainly the idea that Paul has in mind here, and his concerns are founded in the evidence that he points to in verse 4. False apostles were acting in kind with Satan, and Paul will even refer to them as being in-line with Satan in vv. 14-15. Harris notes: “(Paul) recognized the false apostles as Satan’s agents (v. 15), capable of repeating at Corinth what Satan had successfully achieved in the garden of Eden (Ge 3:13; 1 Ti 2:14)—complete deception (exēpatēsen, GK 1987) by cunning. The danger was not moral corruption but intellectual deception (see v. 4) leading to spiritual apostasy” (520).

11.4: The Corinthians proved perfectly willing to “put up with” false teachers who sounded good and boasted in a foolish manner. Paul uses the same term here (trans. “put up with” ἀνέχομαι) as he did in verse 1 exhorting them to “put up with” a little bit of foolish boasting from him. The idea being, “You should be perfectly willing to hear my little bit of foolish boasting, because you do the same for others presenting a false gospel!”

The “Jesus” that they were willing to entertain from these false teachers dictates the rest of what comes in the verse. It is “another Jesus,” “another Spirit,” and “another Gospel.” If one preaches another Jesus then the other two must necessarily be “another” because both are rooted in the person of Christ. Harris makes a worthwhile note here: “What seems clear, however, is that the willingness of the Corinthian believers to entertain the eloquent preacher of an adulterated gospel (cf. Gal 1:6–9) that added human merit to divine grace and gave an interpretation of the earthly ministry of Jesus and the function of the Spirit radically different from Paul’s illustrated their tendency to look “only on the surface of things” (10:7) and their preoccupation with manner rather than matter” (520). Are there times in which we are more preoccupied with manner rather than matter? What’s the danger with that?

11.5-6: In verse 5 Paul introduces the term “super-apostles.” There is some debate as to whom this phrase refers to. Some argue that it was his opponents way of referring to the 12 from which they falsely claim they received their authority. The argument goes that Paul would hardly want to equate himself with his opponents and is far more likely to equate himself with the 12. However, the bookends for the fools speech include references to the “super-apostles” and the language used throughout is far more likely to be levied against his opponents than the 12. I’m of the mind of Furnish who understands this title to be “a highly ironic way to refer to his opponents, who are making pretentious claims in order to win the allegiance of the Corinthian Christians” (quote from Garland 469). Garland adds: “They think that as apostles go, they are second to none. No true apostle of Christ, however, shouts, ‘We are number one!’ This attitude exposes what makes them so evil in Paul’s eyes. All apostles are second to One, Christ; and all are servants of Christ’s church, not overlords” (469).

Some understand the first clause of verse 6 as a ready admission of his opponents accusation that he is an unskilled speaker, while others contend that he is merely playing down his rhetorical skill. It may be that his opponents (and the Corinthians) were drawn to the more verbose “Asianism” style that was immensely popular in the regions Paul was active. Dio Chrysostom makes a similar remark concerning the sophist (who practiced this rhetorical style), being himself a noted orator, saying: “For they are clever persons, mighty sophists, wonder workers; but I am quite ordinary and prosaic in my public speaking, though not ordinary in my theme” (Garland 471). You can clearly see the parallel between the two statements, with both men putting emphasis on content over style. So Paul didn’t speak in the style they liked, but he did speak the knowledge of God that they needed (and this was clear to them in his eighteen months with them and in his writings to them).

11.7-11: What Paul says in this section is really shaped by the culture of the time, especially since the Corinthians were entrenched in that very culture. First, Paul labored with his hands in order to present the Gospel to them free of charge. A philosopher (or orator) could find support in four ways in the ancient world, as Hock notes: “(1) He could charge fees for his teaching. (2) He could enter into the household of a wealthy patron (teaching the sons). (3) He could beg. (4) He could work… ‘Among the philosophers and itinerant teachers of Paul’s day, continuing to work at a craft was regarded as the least acceptable way of providing for life’s necessities’” (Garland 476–477). This was not a view sustained by the day laborers; however, as Garland points out: “The problem for the Corinthians was the incongruous combination they saw in Paul—apostle of the glorious risen Lord and toil weary laborer” (477).

Paul also indicates that there were times where he was in physical need, meaning that his labor did not always provide sufficient funds. He was poor, and remember that in Corinth, money made affluence. As Savage points out: “an impoverished leader was a contradiction in terms…(In Corinth) more than elsewhere, wealth was a prerequisite for honor and poverty a badge of disgrace” (Garland 478). This was not only Paul’s problem; however, since they were associated with him. His poverty reflected poorly on them. The language that he uses here is strong and stresses his desire to humble himself to exalt them (he operated in the meekness and gentleness of Christ, rather than the pompousness and verboseness of his opponents and the culture).

Paul makes his boast, not in the income received, but in the refusing to receive it. He will continue to boast of this “throughout Achaia” which is the region of which Corinth is the capital. Now, there is a worthwhile question: “Why did Paul refuse assistance from Corinth, but accepted it from Macedonia?” His opponents would argue that it is because Paul actively wants to shame them, since accepting gifts was a part of friendship and refusal of them was the rejection of friendship (this is clearly what is indicated by verse 11, and Paul as Kruse notes: “does not bother to dignify this accusation with a reasoned reply. Instead, calling upon God as his witness, he simply affirms his love for his audience” (246-47). Paul provides his own reasoning in 1 Cor 9, but I would suggest on top of this (as Kruse also notes) that the culture in which he lived might have influenced this decision. To accept funds could place him in the position of “client” to their “benefaction.” In this, he would then be obligated to them in some manner, thus he would “be sacrificing some of (his) independence” (Kruse 246). It may be that the Macedonians were of the same mind of Paul and proved to be the exception in that they were the only one’s from whom he accepted funds.

11.12-15: One additional reasoning for Paul’s maintaining this policy was that in doing so he undercut the boasting of his opponents. They wanted to claim that they were at least on the same playing field as Paul. Playing the game of politics, they boasted that they are just like him in an effort to peel off support from Paul. Garland sums this up: “They wanted the Corinthians to withdraw their affection for Paul and exclude him from any support, which was how the nasty game of politics worked in this era. ‘Show your support for me by joining me against my enemies or rivals’” (483). But, they couldn’t make this claim so long as they greedily drew out financial gain from the Corinthians (something about their accepting of financial support stands in contrast to the apostle’s right to accept support, as Paul argued in 1 Cor 9). If they wanted to make the claim that they are just like him, they need to forfeit the pay. Paul doubts that they will.

And the reason for Paul’s confidence in this is that these so-called “superapostles” are actually “pseudoapostles” who are deliberately deceptive. There is a strong notion of intentionality within Paul’s description of these opponents. They are not mistakenly teaching a different Gospel, they are intentionally deceiving the Corinthian. Logos points this out in the description of the false apostles, “a deliberately deceptive person pretending to be an apostle” and deceitful “marked by deliberate deceptiveness.” The participle μετασχηματίζω is a present middle (the middle signifies that the subject of the verb is acting upon itself). These opponents are deliberately deceptive.

With some biting sarcasm Paul says: “It’s not astonishing, for Satan himself μετασχηματίζω as an angel of light.” The verb is the same in both verses. That Satan was a deceiver was a well established point in Judaism. Keener notes: “In some Jewish traditions Satan disguised himself as an angel or in other ways (e.g., as a beautiful woman to some rabbis or as a beggar to Job’s wife…)” (517).

In verse 15 Paul says that they “transform themselves into ministers of righteousness.” In 3:9 Paul wrote: “For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory!” In 5:21 he wrote: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” He refers to the ministry given to him by God, and it is through Christ that we are made the righteousness of God. This is a God oriented righteousness that the false apostles attempt to counterfeit, but they fall short because, just like Satan, though he disguises himself with the “guise of a bright, happy angel; Satan never deigns to take the role of one who was crucified in weakness and sacrificial love” (ft note 264 page 485). Their deeds demonstrate whose they are, and those who follow after them will find that theirs is an unhappy end.

11.16-19: Moving to verse 16 Paul takes up again the appeal for them to “receive him as a fool, so that he too may boast a little.” The manner in which Paul sets this off makes it perfectly clear that he does not want to engage in this kind of talk and that this is not the kind of boasting that God desires. He’s already established in 10:17 that the one who boasts must “boast in the Lord.” The kind of boasting his opponents have been engaged in is “foolish” and “according to the flesh.” That phrase should be contrasted with the things of the Spirit, and in this instance, it is the opposite of boasting in the Lord. Even if one boasts about spiritual things, he can do so in a manner that is not “in the Lord.”

The question becomes: “Why is he boasting in this way?” He supplies the answer in 12:11 “I have been a fool! You forced me to it.” They have been enamored with the false apostles self-promotion and boasting, and now Paul must demonstrate its foolishness by engaging in it. Garland notes: “He adopts his rivals’ ways to show how ultimately foolish they are. Wanting to be better than others in terms of status is foolish; wanting to show oneself better than others is even more foolish” (487). When the two parties are compared, it will be demonstrated that there is no real comparison, but even in Paul’s boasting “according to the flesh” he will not be able to keep himself from highlighting his own weakness and thus giving glory to the God and Father who sustains him (he is after all a clay jar, with a precious treasure within).

Verse 19 provides another reminder of the Corinthians own puffed up view of themselves, which stands in direct contrast to what they were tolerating. They were captivated by style over substance from these opponents, and so “put up with” them. These opponents are now declared “fools” because of their foolish boasting according to the flesh.

11.20-21: Verse 20 provides an image of tyranny exercised by these intruders. Paul stated in 1:24 “I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith.” Apparently, these intruders were of an opposite mind. Paul did not want to lord his authority over their faith, but the opponents wanted to make slaves of them. Keener points out that: “The ideology of the upper classes (shared by Paul’s opponents) held that persons of truly noble character, those suited for freedom, could never tolerate being slaves” (518). We remember also that slave status was universally despised. They were tolerating tyrants who humiliated them.

These tyrants “devoured” them. The term κατεσθίω means to “eat up; consume; gulp down.” The image is that of consuming something else totally, and in this case, it likely refers to their “devouring” of the Corinthians funds through their greedy demands for payment. The verb “take” likely points to this same idea. The verb ἐπαίρω (trans. puts on airs) was used previously in 10:5 to refer to the “lofty pretensions set up against the knowledge of God.” The notion here is one who sets himself up in a presumptuous manner. They are lofty people, and in this lofty position, they aggressively humble others. The statement that the Corinthians tolerate “being struck in the face” shows that these tyrants humiliated them in some manner. Some argue that this is a literal statement, “in which case it would mean the false apostles had become so authoritarian in their dealings with the Corinthians that they would actually slap the faces of those who questioned their authority” (Kruse 252). If the statement is metaphorical, then the meaning remains clear enough. Keener points out: “A blow on the face, like spittle, was a grievous insult to one’s honor” (518). The intruders were dishonoring the Corinthians, and the Corinthians tolerated it!

In full throated sarcasm, Paul states in verse 21, using the first of many references to “weakness” that will follow, he says “To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” The comparison between Paul and his opponents becomes abundantly clear. Paul has been making this appeal “by the meekness and gentleness of Christ” and the question becomes “whose presentation, life, and teaching most closely resembles this Christ?” Paul built them up, the intruders enslaved.